Tesla the anti-semite, Einstein the babbling plagiarist, & Hawking the vegetable

reply to post by Auricom

So truthfully, I believe Einstein's wife (Mileva) was the real brains behind it all. Makes sense seeing that even though she was already in a position not given to many females, many men wouldn't take a woman's theories seriously unless they were theories of how to make dinner better.

If you ignore the fact that he spent most of his live actively theorizing with other physicists, in person.....

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Stephen Hawking.

Early in his carer he was outspoken against Einstein, and then he mysteriously developed his disease? How come then he is the only one to live this long with it? Makes no sense.

The fact of the matter is he's a vegetable, and just a puppet mouthpiece for MS science, what they want him to say, and that is to support Einstein fundamentally.

Yep, you've done been duped.

Happy trials [sic, deliberate], partners.

speak of what you know, yes it's rather sudden sometimes and for your information not every form of ms has the same prognosis, at least 40 percent of people with ms live into their 70's like hawking has.
why would any ms researchers or organizations be concerned over einstein or astrophysics at all?

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by dashen

 

And what does that prove but that light has mass?

I was just thinking about that possibility just yesterday too, though some may think it is not accurate, and that tests have shown certain data, perhaps light mass is so small that current technology may not be powerful enough to detect that small mass.

Because really, what IS a photon? A particle? I think of a particle as something with mass, even if it is so amazingly small in amount, i would think that if you take that mass away and that leaves you with nothing. How can you have a light particle with nothing for mass? I could not in all honesty call it a particle anymore, you can't really have a particle without mass, it would be nothing and not there.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

miss, never trust a jew

in jest, i've said something similar, like "never trust a frenchman" or "never trust a man wearing a tunic".

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. These properties we can only speak of when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

ooooooooooooook. bending space can be witnessed. we frickin USE large clusters of mass far out in the universe as a lens because they bend space and observing more distant stars through the bent space allows us to see better.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

ooooooooooooook. bending space can be witnessed. we frickin USE large clusters of mass far out in the universe as a lens because they bend space and observing more distant stars through the bent space allows us to see better.

As well as time dilation has been proven, spooky action at a distance has been proven, AND proven to be at least 10000 times faster than the speed of light, instantaneous if you will.

Particles like electrons, protons and photons have been shown to actually be both a particle and a wave, depending on if you are measuring it. It doesn't really bother me that the OP is ignorant of this stuff, it bothers me that people are reading his nonsense and actually believing it.

We're talking decades of basic science here, basic stuff they teach in high school. I mean, even if you didn't pay attention, just being in the same room with all of that information should have rubbed off a little.

Basic stuff that anyone with the ambition and equipment, can test for themselves.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

It's hard to deny the obvious.

I used to believe that myself, til I met people like you.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
ooooooooooooook. bending space can be witnessed. we frickin USE large clusters of mass far out in the universe as a lens because they bend space and observing more distant stars through the bent space allows us to see better.

No, just no. We don´t make use of large masses bending space; large masses bend light. That´s why we can sometimes observe stars directly behind our sun, which should be obscured from view if the light wasn´t bent around the sun.

As for the OP... the arguments are quite weak, though they have truth in them. I once wrote a thread about Milan Pavlovic, who wrote papers on relativity in which he critizes Einstein from all angles, mainly showing that Einstein was incapable of applying Lorentz transformations correctly and therefore invalidating his theories altogether. If you have interest in the topic, try to read the papers which are quite mathematically complex, yet easy to follow.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by interupt42

 

Any wonder he had to marry a math whiz to do his calculations for him?

On that note , I think Rodinus edit pretty much sums up your logic.

Originally posted by Rodinus

edit on 26-7-2013 by Rodinus because: Ohhh just forget about it!... OP = time waster

Originally posted by cruddas

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by dashen

 

Because really, what IS a photon? A particle? I think of a particle as something with mass, even if it is so amazingly small in amount, i would think that if you take that mass away and that leaves you with nothing. How can you have a light particle with nothing for mass? I could not in all honesty call it a particle anymore, you can't really have a particle without mass, it would be nothing and not there.

Not according to the Higgs-Kibble mechanism for generating particle masses. If the particle does not interact with the Higgs field permeating all space (and the photon does not because it lacks color and electric charges), then the Higgs particle cannot confer mass to it. Not having mass does NOT imply nothing is there. The quantum world is very counter-intuitive.

reply to post by RationalDespair

Bob Scholz is right. Mass bends space. Light merely follows the curve.

Proof

I have wondered for some time now at the propensity some have to try and discredit others, even to their own discredit. Perhaps it is jealousy?

In any case, I wouldn't doubt Tesla being anti-Semite. But I also wouldn't doubt that his inventions gave us the ignition system in the internal-combustion gasoline engine, nor would I doubt that his work led to the ease with which we distribute power today using AC instead of DC.

Einstein was an idiot in many ways. He was so mathematically-minded so as to appear idiotic to those who met him. His theories were so advanced that even his peers had trouble understanding them fully, and yet they proved true when we began exploring space in earnest. Gravitational lensing is direct evidence of Einstein's predictions, and even GPS could not function adequately without taking into account relativistic calculations.

Hawkings, poor guy, was actually a so-so student until the disease that riddles his body started. Yet he was able to function without the benefit of writing... everything he comes up with he does so completely within his mind. If every prediction he ever made, every theory he ever proposed were proven wrong, the fact that he can even function in that situation is in itself beyond even the imagination of most folks.

Isaac Newton was a hothead too, with a fierce temper, and was quite probably bipolar. Yet his work laid the foundations for understanding gravity, calculus, and quite a few other advances.

In the end, we are all human and all imperfect. But no matter what the personal demons that affronted these men were, their accomplishments work. To deny this fact is to embrace ignorance. Can their accomplishments be exceeded? Yes! Absolutely! That is what science does! Someday I am sure that Einsteins musings will lead to a new theory more inclusive of all phenomena, just as his work expanded Newton's work. But none of that will come from those who simply want to find ad hominem excuses to dismiss those who came before us. None of us can claim total credit for anything we do, and that includes scientists; we all stand on the shoulders of giants, who stood on the shoulders of giants. To claim otherwise is little different than the old fable of the Emperor's new clothes: making a claim that to the rest of the world is patently and obviously ludicrous.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by CircleOfDust

 

Cosmic rays do not go faster than light.

Just don't.

All it takes is a simple look into the matter, wiki if nothing else. Not terribly hard.

Hmm, interesting.

Cosmic ray wiki

Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 1020 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball. As a result of these discoveries, there has been interest in investigating cosmic rays of even greater energies.[8] Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10−11 J).[9]

Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements.[10]

So they did mask the word "neutron" with the terminology "nuclei of heavier elements", how strange. Maybe you are onto something after all?? Albeit they claim it's only 1%, that's still enough to prove a theory.

The first detection method is called the air Cherenkov telescope, designed to detect low-energy (

reply to post by CircleOfDust


Tesla. His contributions to society are everywhere. You're writhing on this computer because Tesla refined AC power and created hydro electricity. You can see your keyboard because of the fluorescent lighting over your head. And so many more I couldn't enumerate them all. Being an anti Semite doesn't change that. Wernher Von Braun was an SS officer and he was the foremost scientist for NASA.

Einstein. Space cannot be bent but Space-Time can. Two different things.

Hawking. A vegetable? Really? The last time I checked people in vegetative states couldn't focus their eye site on people or objects. Nor can they have facial expressions. And I thought a lot of Hawking's theories contradicted Einstein's.

Who cares if Tesla hated someone over stupid reasons, and who cares if Einstein was an idiot, and who cares if they might or might not control Hawking as a robot puppet, that's irrelevant now. Funny, but irrelevant.

All that matters is if what this guy is saying is true, and if there is a actually a cover up to hide the truth about FTL technology and it's reality.

I have seen some crazy ufo incidents before so I know they are lying about that, so this really falls right in with it.

So what does the OP really know let's find out...

reply to post by RationalDespair

We don´t make use of large masses bending space; large masses bend light.

and why are photons, a mass-less particle, bent? could it be that they are trying to follow the straightest possible path in CURVED space?

ever wonder why light can't escape black holes? if the space wasn't bent, the light could easily escape, having no mass that gravity could effect.

reply to post by muzzleflash

So they did mask the word "neutron" with the terminology "nuclei of heavier elements", how strange.

Why strange? Atomic nuclei are made of protons and (usually) neutrons – surely that is common knowledge, at least among people who have any interest in cosmic rays? When you say a cosmic ray is an atomic nucleus, the presence of neutrons is understood.

Note, by the way, that only one percent of cosmic rays contain any neutrons at all.

As for why high-energy particles travelling through space are called cosmic rays, history is sufficient to explain the origin of the term, while wave-particle duality justifies its continued usage.

ETA re. Cherenkov radiation: as the external source you quoted says, this is secondary emission created when particles travel faster than the speed of light in their medium. The speed of light varies depending on what it is passing through; it only reaches c, the absolute speed limit for everything, in a vacuum. In media, such as a dense gas, in which the speed of light is appreciably less than c, very-high-energy particles can indeed outpace photons. Cherenkov radiation is a well-known phenomenon; it's what causes the blue glow in water-cooled nuclear reactors.

These things may be unfamiliar to the man in the street, but that is because they are not of wide interest to the public and are hence rarely discussed or publicised. They are quite familiar to people with an interest in physics, readers of quality science-fiction and, of course, scientists.

reply to post by CircleOfDust


Well, based on the title of your thread...

Tesla the anti-semite, Einstein the babbling plagiarist, & Hawking the vegetable

It's quite clear that it was meant to be derogatory.

Rorshach Test

Ok Everything is like this pretty much.
You see what you want to see.

That's why I find threads like this fascinating, because of how the socio-psychological dynamics develop.

OP challenges current common belief by criticizing the character of the "Idols of Science Worship", which is a cult of religious devotion in a defacto manner these days due to institutionalization. When "Doctrine and Status Quo" overrides "The Scientific Method", you know something has gone very wrong.

At best maybe 10% of "science" today is legitimate inquiry, whereas the rest is for making $ and learning how to mind control the population better.

Of course not everyone reacts negatively, some will actually look into it to see if it's true just out of curiosity. Some make jokes which are pretty funny.

Whatever the truth about the topic matter is, it is indeed interesting to examine the responses.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Why strange?.

Because apparently they are covering up FTL technology.
I don't know much but it is very 'strange' from our perspective as we lack 99% of the data to actually know what's going on.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Well that all depends on if one takes the word anti-semite derogatorily, doesn't it?

Well no one likes to be treated with contempt especially when it's based on things ( place of birth, looks, etc etc) they had no control over and can not change even if they wanted to. If you do not treat people on their personal merit and without taking what you know of their likely circumstances at birth or while growing up the only thing you are really proving to decent observers is that you are in fact the indecent one.

Also, for the record, AFAIK, not even 10% of practicing/ accepted Jews today are of actual Semitic descent ( the vast majority are from eastern European 'Caucasian' descent) so being anti Semitic and being Anti-Jewish can in fact be very different things! It's all very ridiculous but we should at least try to be ridiculous within factual bounds...

As far as Tesla and the like goes ( within investigating the claim) not particularly liking 'jews' was pretty much in vogue back in those days just as not liking other cultures or ethnic groups still is to this day. The fact that there is no race of Jews any more than there is a race of Caucasians, or whatever other races you heard of, in my opinion means that the whole mess that can be summarised as 'racism' is simply incoherent; something only ignoramuses and terribly misinformed/misguided people believe in.

A for Einstein...

en.wikipedia.org...

Stellar